When does a decision leave "Contentious" and go to downright "Robbery" ??

Interesting to see the take on the Marquez fight...some people have Marquez by slim margins and others have a robbery!!!

Everyone has a different opinion on when a contentious decision becomes a robbery.....but what ball park are we..(8-4) 116-112 is that one????

Obviously Whittaker-Ramirez is classed as a stone dead robbery!!

But what in your opinion takes a fight from a contentious decision to downright robbery!!

I'd be interested to know.

I'd say anything that is obviously wider than 3 rounds or so to everyone watching it. It is a tough one, really, as it all comes down to individual preference and opinion when calling a fight.

Whitaker Ramirez - certainly. It's difficult to call something like the JMM Pac fight a robbery when some people score rounds so differently depending on workrate, aggression, punches landed etc...it can be a real lottery, which is a shame.

It's interesting isn't it...Miost people had Larry by three against Spinks and that was considered a robbery...

Maybe because the rounds Holmes won were clear...

I'd say when the general consensus is that fighter A won by four or more rounds but fighter B gets the nod, we've well and truly entered 'robbery' territory. But as Fists has said, it's a subjective thing.

For instance, we regularly see De la Hoya-Trinidad, Lewis-Holyfield I and Hopkins-Taylor classed as robberies - I couldn't disagree more. Contentious, close and highly debatable, but not robberies. In those cases (particularly Lewis-Holyfield) the decisions are often incorrect, but not to a point where it's totally impossible to see how that decision was reached. In recent years, Gorres-Darchinyan, Macklin-Sturm and Toney-Griffin II would be decent examples of that.

But I genuinely believe that saturday night's fight does qualify for robbery status (again, I'll stress that it's a subjective thing).

Subjective for sure but maybe the criteria changes the more we want a fighter to win!!!

Maybe If I had Curry winning by two and he lost ..it would be different from fighter A winning by three and losing!!!

interesting..

A 'robbery' suggests foul play rather than just poor judging. Marquez 1 & 2 could be considered contentious decisions from a Marquez fans point of view, this weekends consitutes a robbery IMO.

i think if you're talking about consensus opinion extending no further than 7-5 to 5-7 (a 2 round swing) then you could probably say its a contentious decision but many had this down as 8-4 marquez whereas trowbridge had it 4-8 ....a 4 round swing....add to that the fact that there was no parity across the judges either....how one can see a draw and another can see a 4 round margin begs further questions....esp when the 8-4 to pacquiao scorer scores one of pacs strongest rounds to marquez!

Yes you're right I think he needs suspending on that issue alone....

Looks like he wanted Paccy to win then saw the margin and thought oops I'll not get away with 117-111..

His card stunk for sure..

he probably had his mind on other things...like how many free rides he was getting on the tecate girls courtesy of kind Uncle Bob!

As Jukebox says, you can tolerate a fighter you think has won losing on the cards if it's close because judging is subjective - but when the cards suggest blatant foul play we cry robbery. Froch Kessler for example - no doubt in my mind Kessler won by 2 points, but when the 117-111 card was read you have to wonder what's going on. Same as the 117-111 card in Clev v Bellew, or the ridiculous scoring in McDermott Fury 1 that robbed Big Mac blind. Manny JMM III is another example of it - 114-113 to manny and you might say poor judging, 116-112 to manny and it's clear someone has been nobbled. No doubt for me the fix was in on this one, Manny cannot lose as a TR home fighter/cash cow unless he is KO'd, which is unlikely as he has a fine chin. Boxing seems to disgust me more and more these days, this year has been bad.

What about Taylor-Chavez 1 Sweetie...........

Two shutouts for Taylor and the mexican judge had Chavez ahead...going into the 12th..

what happens to these guys??????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What about Taylor-Chavez 1 Sweetie...........

Two shutouts for Taylor and the mexican judge had Chavez ahead...going into the 12th..

what happens to these guys??????

Shouldnt have had a Mexican judge in the first place. Lucky for him Steele stole his thunder in the controversy stakes.

Steele was the back up...

Contentious decisions split opinion- fights like Hagler v Leonard or Groves Degale- for every person that agreed with the decision you can find one who didn't. Robbery is when the vast majority disagree with it- so Pac v Marquez 111 falls into robbery. For me whether the fight is close or not is not really relevant. Take the Ali v Norton trilogy- all very close, but the first two were contentious as equal numbers of fans had each winning, the third was robbery- almost everyone had it for Norton.

A pretty good analysis horizontal....I suppose the problem is deciding when 69% becomes the 70% needed for robbery though hey!!

but I do think you've basically hit the nail on the head..

When there aren't enough rounds that they had at least a shout at being given to win it.

So if they had a shout at six out of the twelve it's a robbery????